To Apple, Love Taylor • Hacker News Board

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#181

Post by maxerickson » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #126

nrp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014. Apple has north of $20 Billion in cash in the US. There are likely many reasons for Apple to make the move they did, but it is unlikely cash on hand was one of them.

"Per the RIAA, the entire recorded music industry in the US recorded under $7 Billion in revenue in 2014." Amazing. We think of the RIAA, or "big music" as some kind of juggernaut force in society and politics - especially Internet politics. But their entire industry top line is smaller than what fedex makes in a month .[1] [1] http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fdx/revenue-eps

The months there are dates marking fiscal quarters, so each number is for 3 months. Fedex monthly revenue is a bit less than $4 billion.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#182

Post by samuellevy » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

jannotti wrote: post #125

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come 10% is high enough for corporations but I pay a lot more than that in income taxes. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think it could be either way, but many object to the fact that it is both. In other words, corporate tax is seen as double taxation, since the earnings (after taxes) are then passed on to shareholders, who pay tax on it again. I could see a coherent tax code that taxes corporations, but not individuals, or one that taxed individuals, but not corporations (Of course with either of these there would no doubt be all s…

I'm not sure how the tax system works in the US, but I was just talking to my accountant about this issue the other day.

In Australia, my company gets taxed at a flat 30% on all profits in a year. If I want to take cash out of the company after that tax has been taken, I pay "top-up" tax that brings the total tax paid to the level of my income tax rate.

For example, if the company earned $10000, after all expenses, then it would pay $3000 in tax, leaving $7000 left that I can take out. If I earned no money in the year, my income tax rate is 0%, so the top-up tax is -$3000 (I.e. I get a tax refund for $3000). If I earned $50000 in the year, then my income tax rate is 32.5%, so I would have to pay top-up tax of $250 (I.e. 2.5% of the original $10000, which has already been taxed 30%).

Double taxation shouldn't happen, and while my company was set up for tax minimisation purposes, international corporations are able to do an insane level of fuckery to avoid almost all taxation.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#183

Post by j42 » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

Can anyone explain the intent here? It seems like a ridiculous decision by Apple any way I look at it... and I'm an active opponent of the major labels & right-holder organizations.

If Apple is trying to shift to a user-subscription model and pay the labels (ultimately, artists) net-90, that's great, however it's obvious to anyone who's run a bootstrapped business that an unforeseen, 90 day break in cash flow can be an unrecoverable setback.

Not for big labels. They can weather the storm (though precedent dictates they'll pass as much of this cost on to their artists as legally possible).

The financial situation of end content creators and smaller studios is far more variable. Some will be fine. Others (especially those with content scheduled for release within this 3-month window) could be completely overwhelmed. This simply consolidates more market power into the hands of currently-large labels, and generates ill will toward Apple elsewhere.

Why would a company that seems to want to attract self-publishers into its walled garden not find a structured solution to bridge the gap?

I'm all for forcing artists to stream their music (I'm looking at you, Taylor Swift), because I see how that can ultimately make everyone more money.

Arbitrarily disrupting cash flow, though, in order to run an experiment and offload your acquisition costs is a pretty offensive, and surprising move by a company with hundreds of billions in fungible assets.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#184

Post by pmorici » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

Everyone discussing this seems to take as fact that this is going to take away revenue from some other music distribution channel. In fact it could just as easily increase music consumption on the whole. If it does increase total royalties then it makes sense for the artists share the costs of promoting it through the 3 month free trial.

It's almost certainly not in Apple's interest to cannibalize their existing iTunes sales for the streaming service.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#185

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #174

JohnTHaller wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this. > Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes. Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Andr…

> A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this. Well I am far more likely to take the measured, legally considered statement from Apple over a single independent artist's Twitter posts. Apple would be in a for a world of hurt if they deliberately mislead people. > Did you purposely take my quote out of context No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It…

> Well I am far more likely to take the measured, legally considered statement from Apple over a single independent artist's Twitter posts. Apple would be in a for a world of hurt if they deliberately mislead people.

Considering the way Apple lied... ehem... misspoke? misled people?... about ebooks, lying about music isn't that far fetched.

> No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It is completely legitimate to use iTunes to add it to your collection. Otherwise third party apps exist which allow you to download from the mobile web. I am not saying it isn't as flexible as Android but it is disingenuous to say it isn't possible.

So, as I said, it is impossible for an iOS user to just download a song and add it to their music library on the go. It would be technically easy for Apple to enable this, but they purposely disallow this to make it harder for customers to purchase from 3rd parties. The same way they won't let 3rd parties sell music within their apps without paying 30% to Apple (making it financially impossible).

Having to go all the way home, add your music to iTunes, plug your phone into your computer, and then sync to iTunes just to be able to add a single MP3 to your phone's music library may be "legitimate" but it's anything but reasonable. It's in this state solely to make it inconvenient to the user and push them into the open arms of iTunes.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#186

Post by w4 » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:14 PM UTC

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints:

> Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will receive unlimited access to all apps on the App Store. Developers will receive a share of each user's subscription payments in proportion to app usage. Apple simultaneously announces a 3 month free trial for all App Store accounts, and states that it will be making no payments to developers during that trial since users are not paying for it.

I, personally, would ditch iOS development for Android in a heartbeat if that happened. I can't blame musicians for having a similar reaction.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#187

Post by taylorwho » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

Fargren wrote: post #180

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'…

Taylor who? And why should we care about her so-called muzak?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#188

Post by tehwalrus » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

Fargren wrote: post #180

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'…

This is about free access to a set of highly engineered content, which is not just a back catalogue you are trying to milk but your current latest creation.

We do not think that software engineers should be prohibited from charging for copies of their software: neither do we think that musicians should be prohibited for getting paid for their music.

Yes, people will continue to make art for free, because they love doing it. No, that has nothing to do with whether people are (implicitly) banned from charging for their art/labour if they want to.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#189

Post by taylorwho » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

The only thing swift about her "music" is how quickly/swiftly listeners turn off when her wailing comes on. And Taylor? Pah! She needs a tailor - have you seen some the crummy outfits she wears?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#190

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #175

JohnTHaller wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also cre…

I don't think you understand how music usually works… 30 years playing in and recording with independent bands. Dong just fine on understanding up front investments.

> 30 years playing in and recording with independent bands. Dong just fine on understanding up front investments.

Apologies, then. Though I am curious about your take on this... specifically why it differs from my other friends. All of my independent musician friends I know online and off think this is a raw deal as soon as they learn the details. I understand why it makes sense for the big labels (they don't care about artists' incomes and likely got a sweet payoff from Apple). But I'm curious why a smaller musician/music producer would be happy with it.